Point of Law: Allotment of dealership - Cancellation of selection process - As long as final allotment of dealership is not made by the Company, the petitioners do not have any vested right to start Retail Outlets.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the cancellation of selection process for allotment of Petroleum Retail Outlets by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 3415/2019 states that the 1st respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. published Ext.P1 advertisement on 25.11.2018 inviting applications for regular/rural retail outlet dealerships at various locations in the State of Kerala and Mahe District of Union Territory of Pondicherry. The petitioner is lessee of 5.99 Ares of property in Survey No. 140, Sub Division No. 39 of Olavanna Village in Kozhikode District. In response to Ext.P1 Advertisement, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application. By Ext.P4 communication, the petitioner was informed that he was qualified for bid opening process for selection of Retail Outlet dealership and was required to be present personally on 01.02.2019 at the bid opening venue.

3. Four candidates were qualified for the bid opening process, for Location No. 611. To the prejudice and predicament of the petitioner, he was telephonically informed that the 1st respondent is cancelling the draw in respect of location No. 611. The same was communicated by Ext.P7 e-mail also on 01.03.2019. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P7 and the cancellation of the selection process.

4. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 22397/2019 also submitted Ext.P3 application in response to Ext.P1 advertisement dated 25.11.2018 for Location No. 209, Chelad to Kothamangalam in Ernakulam District. The petitioner, as per Ext.P4 communication, was informed that he being the only applicant for the said location, he is declared as selected. The petitioner made the initial security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- and produced all the requisite documents. However, the petitioner was served with Ext.P8 communication stating that the subject location stands cancelled. Though the petitioner submitted further representations, there was no positive response from the respondents. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside Ext.P8 and to direct the respondents to process his application.

5. The counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3415/2019 argued that the selection process was cancelled arbitrarily, without notice and for no fault of the petitioner. The cancellation communicated to the petitioner gives no reason, and hence it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It appears that cancellation is as a consequence of some complaints received by the 1st respondent after the last date prescribed for submission of applications and hence the respondents committed grave illegality, by cancelling the selection process.

6. As regards the de-duplication exercise conducted by the respondents, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no materials are produced by the respondents to show that the alleged mistaken categorisation of the location as “Regular Retail Outlet” instead of “Rural Retail Outlet” happened despite the conduct of the de-duplication exercise. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita Gupta vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 601, to contend that cancellation of the selection process without hearing the petitioner can not stand the scrutiny of law.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 22397/2019 pointed out that the location of the outlet for which the petitioner was selected in the bid evaluation process, is far away from Kothamangalam Town. Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Tahsildar would prove that the location is three kilometres away from Kothamangalam Town. Ext.P10 certificate issued by the Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality would show that the location is far outside the Municipal limits. Therefore, it is evident that there is no question of erroneous categorisation of the Retail Outlet.

8. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the cancellation is based on a complaint filed by a rival retail outlet dealer whose outlet is wi